Will County Land Use & Development Committee met March 8.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM
Chair Tyler Marcum called the meeting to order at 10:40 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Tyler Marcum | Chair | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Absent | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Absent | |
| Saud Gazanfer | Member | Present |
Land Use Staff present were Dawn Tomczak, Lisa Napoles, Marguerite Kenny, Brian Radner, Adrian Diaz and David Dubois.
Matt Guzman was present from the Will County State's Attorney's Office.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Saud Gazanfer led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes from February 8, 2022 will be approved at next meeting.
1. WC Land Use & Development Committee - Regular Meeting - Feb 8, 2022 10:30 AM
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion to postpone approval to next meeting passed unanimously 5-0
| RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Traynere, Gazanfer ABSENT: Ogalla, Weigel |
1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-21-074, Dean E. Cunning, Owner of Record and Richard Kavanagh of Kavanagh Grumley & Gorbold LLC; Attorney; Requesting (M-21-019) Map Amendment from A-1 to R-1 and (V-21-082) Variance for Minimum Lot Frontage from 165 feet to 164.96 feet (on Lot# 502 per 50 feet ROW dedication) for PIN #01-24-13-100-018-0000 and 01-24-13-202-001-0000 in Custer Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Land between Zilm Road & Rt. 113, Custer Park, IL, County Board District #6
(Marguerite Kenny)
Marguerite Kenny presented Zoning Case ZC-21-074, which takes place in Custer Township.
Marguerite says thank you Mr. Chairman, Zoning Case ZC-71-074 as you mentioned is a map amendment request. There are two parcels that will be rezoned. So, the total area is 78.98 acres. The property owner is Dean E Cunning. Where Richard Kavanagh of K.G.G. LLC is the attorney representing the property owner. The applicant is looking to divide the current acreage into 15 5-acre parcels As they are smaller than the typical A-1 District but the are rezoning to R-1 where each lot would meet the minimal lot standards for R-1. The applicant did request a variance for one of the lots because it was deficient for lot frontage by less than half an inch. It was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. With regards to the rezoning there are a lot of Residential Zoning Districts in this area. This is along the Kankakee River and Route 113 in this area. Of all of the agencies notified, none objected but once the Staff report was published, the Illinois Department of Transportation did submit comments concerning the road access along Route 113. It would be likely that they would only grant one entrance for the proposed 8 lots granted along Route 113. That would require a recorded easement to each of those eight parcels be recorded in perpetuity, so that each property would have direct access onto the public road. Aside from that, the only other concerns were from two concerned citizens that came out to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mainly stating their concerns about the existing safety of Route 113, drainage and the traffic occurring on the roads. There is a residential area so there is a concern about increased truck traffic on Route 113. With regards to that, once the lots are created, building and site development permits would be required for each lot. In doing so the County would review each lot for conformance with the Water Research, Zoning Ordinances and Building Code. The Fire Protection District would review and have approvals as part of these permitting processes. As well as the Health Department and (IDOT along Route 113) as Zilm is under the Will County Department of Transportation. So, they will have to get approvals from the County DOT as well.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Jacqueline Traynere raises her hand.
Chairman Marcum said Jackie?
Jacqueline Traynere said yes, thank you very much. I am totally in favor of this, but I did note, and we have a new Board Member, so I wanted to cover a couple of things. I focus on what you say as Staff. I noted in one of the reasons why you can approve this is because they are not creating a hardship on themselves and that if they went with 14 lots, they would not need this variance. I couldn't believe they had to ask for half an inch. I was very interested that in the center of the property of the parcel that ends with 9000, what is that? Does somebody own that, is it some sort of utility things? How did that happen?
Marguerite Kenny said, so there is a parcel that has already been divided out from this section of the property, It is 5-acres with 165 feet of frontage. So that is basically same as the proposed lots. That happened a while ago before the property owner had ownership.
Jacqueline Traynere said okay, other than that, it seemed kind of bizarre, that anybody would want a long strip of property like that unless there is some specific use. When you see this, you question if it's really 5-acres, it just looked unusual, thank you very much.
Chairman Marcum said are there any other questions from Committee Members?
Saud Gazanser made a Motion to approve. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Chairman Marcum said Mr. Kavanagh did sign up to speak. Or if anyone has any questions?
Richard Kavanagh said I am here to answer any questions. And that parcel was created as the result of the divorce of my client's father from his mother which happened over 30 years ago.
Jacqueline Traynere said I knew there had to be a story. Okay.
Chairman Marcum said does anyone from the public wish to speak on this matter? A gentleman from the galley raises his hand.
Chairman Marcum said all you have to do is step down to the microphone and all you have to do is state your name.
Gentleman from the galley said I want to thank the Board Members for allowing us to speak and for you to be here on the citizen's behalf. I don't want to repeat the questions I asked the last time I was here before. Some of the additional questions I have in regard to this is I thought the County had done away sometime ago with what was called the bowling alley/pin lots. The very narrow, thin, and long lots. Now it seems like, what, we are going back to that. The other concern was since they are putting in 15 separate lots, will they need to have 15 different variances to have access to the Zilm Road or Route 113? That's a lot of driveways to pack in. I would think you'd have to have a little more easement frontage for entrance and exit to the roads. That's the only thing I wanted to bring up in addition to the one I already had which is the legitimacy of real thin lots like this and the access to the roads. The way I saw it laid out it looked like 15 individual driveways going to the road. I just don't see it being feasible. Infrastructure is one thing that they looked at. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said one thing, you didn't state your name for the record. Can you tell her your name so that it's on the record.
Dawn Tomczak said you didn't sign in.
Stan Hullett introduced himself to the Committee before he went back to his seat. Chairman Marcum said does anyone else want to speak on this matter?
Jacqueline Traynere said I do have a question. Staff noted that there would be like one entrance off each of the main roads, one at Zilm Road and the other at Route 113? Would there be a service road to get to each of the eight lots?
Richard Kavanagh said I think Staff mentioned that IDOT said they'd allow one. I'm trying to contact IDOT, as you probably know it is difficult to get a-hold of Wayne Chan. We had initially thought to use four entrances of Route 113, with a common driveway for each two parcels. We may be required to use only the one entrances. Its a question of whether we can persuade IDOT, that if there were really 10-acre lots we would get four entrances automatically. With respect to Zilm Road, we have worked with the County Highway Department, and we will be dedicating 50 feet or 60 feet to Highway Department and will get the eight entrances.
Jacqueline Traynere said okay, so off of Route 113, whether is 1, 2, or 4 entrances or whatever it is they end up approving. Is there going to be some sort of connection between them?
Richard Kavanagh said there would be an easement for access as Staff mentioned in their report.
Jacqueline Traynere said okay.
Richard Kavanagh said so if there is only one, it would be between the fourth and fifth lot, it would cross the culvert, come on to the property and then would be an easement across the front of lots 5, 6, and 7 to get to lot 8 and across lots 4, 3, and 2 to get to lot 1. That would be a permanent easement.
Jacqueline Traynere said and would be the responsibility of the lot owner and not creating an actual road?
Richard Kavanagh said that is correct.
Chairman Marcum said does anyone else have any questions?
No one answers.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Motion to Approve Map Amndment from A-1 to R-1 (M-21-019)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Saud Gazanfer, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Traynere, Gazanfer ABSENT: Ogalla, Weigel |
(Lisa Napoles)
Lisa Napoles presented Zoning Case ZC-21-082, which takes place in New Lenox Township.
Lisa Napoles said thank you Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, Zoning Case ZC-21- 082 is for Special Use Permit for keeping Farm Animals, in this case are goats. The owner of the property is Glen Banks.
In June of 2021 the property was placed in violation by Will County Land Use Department Code Enforcement staff in response to a complaint received pertaining to ducks and goats on the property. As of May 20, 2021, the keeping of ducks and goats requires special use permit approval in the R-3 zoning district per the zoning ordinance.
The applicant attended pre-application meeting with staff on September 23, 2021, to address the violation. At that time the applicant stated that he planned to temporarily re-home the ducks and goats and to apply for a special use permit in order to keep the animals on the property and resolve the violation. Per section 155-10.10(B)(30)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, two adult goats over 6 months of age not exceeding 60 pounds in weight are permitted in the R-3 zoning district with an approved special use permit. The applicant has requested that the special use permit not be transferable to subsequent property owners. This is the applicant’s first request for this special use.
On January 11, Staff received an email from Code Enforcement Staff that the goats and the ducks had been removed from the property and that the Violation was closed. The New Lenox Village Board held their own hearing regarding this case on January 10, 2022. Staff received a letter dated January 11, 2022, informing the Land Use Department that the Village Board voted not to object to the special use permit pending five conditions. Which are included in your packet. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that only two goats are permitted in the R-3 District with special use permit approval, that the goats must be kept in a fenced in area, and that all the structures housing the goats be a minimum of 25 feet from any residence (with the exception of the animal owner’s). Two of the conditions, that the fenced area should be located behind the existing garage, and that the required fenced in area should have a solid fence a minimum of 4 feet in height, are beyond the requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance and cannot be enforced by the County.
So, I have provided a detail analysis in your packets but to summarize, it's Staff's professional opinion that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public’s health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. While the applicant had not first obtained the special use permit prior to acquiring the goats, the applicant has worked with Land Use Department staff to resolve the violation and bring the property into conformance. It is Staff’s professional opinion that the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The R-3 district only allows up to two goats to be kept on the property with special use permit approval.
Per the Zoning Ordinance, all buildings and structures that house animals must be located at least 25 ft from all existing dwellings, except the animal owners. As stated previously, the County requires that the enclosure be 25 feet from any residence, except the animal owners. The Zoning Ordinance permits fences up to 7 feet high inside and rear years in residential zoning districts. Erecting fences in easements is not recommended.
Staff is recommending approval with the 4 conditions which have been added to ensure compliance with the County's adopted codes and ordinances.
Chairman Marcum said Jackie?
Jacqueline Traynere said mentioned goats and ducks at the beginning but the recommendations and so forth seem to talk about only on the goats. Are the ducks not allowed or are they already allowed?
Lisa Napoles said no, ducks are allowed with a Special Use Permit. In the Staff report it does say that the goats were removed from the property and the applicant chose only to seek a special use to have the goats back on the property and have permanently re-homed the ducks.
Jacqueline Traynere said okay because I was wondering what happened to the ducks. That was my only question.
Lisa Napoles said okay.
Steve Balich made a Motion to approve. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Chairman Marcum said anyone else have questions?
No one answers
Chairman Marcum said alright, we had one person who signed up to speak on this, Joyce Nelson?
Joyce Nelson introduces herself to the Committee. We are the neighbor where I backyard immediately backs up to their backyard. When we look out our kitchen or dining room window, we see the pen they want to put them in which previously was for the ducks. Because they use to keep the goats in the house prior. So, our concern is below the pen they have, there is a drainage ditch where the manure and urine would go down into there. They have never cleaned this pen. All they do is mud, constantly mud. They may throw a little straw out here and there but no actual cleaning. My husband and I are both from farms, so we do understand how you take care of animals. So, we are looking at the side of the house and not behind the garage where everyone can see it. They had the goats out on their patio at 1:30 in the morning with their bellering, that we have to listen to because I bedroom window also faces the patio. So, our concerns are the smell, the noise, and the safety of these goats. They only have this little bitty fence up and we have coyotes in this area. They have already lost some of their chickens to coyotes and other animals. We are concerned that they are not really able to care for them. All of the neighbors are concerned that the alfalfa brought in for these animals will bring in rats and mice. They came in and never asked a neighbor about anything, they just brought in the goats, the ducks, and a rooster. Half of the animals they had to get rid of because they didn't do their research first. We are hoping you will deny this for us. Thank you.
Chairman Marcum said anyone else have questions?
Jacqueline Traynere raised her hand.
Chairman Marcum said yes Jackie.
Jacqueline Traynere said I just wanted to ask on the Staff recommendation it says the waste shall be managed and removed as to not to create a nuisance. Also, the Land Use Department and the Sheriff's Department can be granted the right of entry to check the premises. But it does talk about 14 days written notice, is that our normal policy.
Lisa Napoles said yes County Board member that is a standard condition that is place on Special Use Permits.
Jacqueline Traynere said I guess I'm just a little concerned. I guess at some point if the violate the conditions, do we have the right to take the permit away? Does the Land Use Department have the right to take the permit away?
Lisa Napoles said yes Special Use Permits can be revoked for violating the conditions.
Jacqueline Traynere said do you need commission to do that?
Lisa Napoles said yes.
Jacqueline Traynere said so that means a longer period of time for the nuisance, yes?
Lisa Napoles said yes.
Jacqueline Traynere said so is one infraction enough for you to come to us and say you want to remove the special use?
Brian Radner said Board Member Traynere to address your question. This does come up from time to time. There is a procedure in the ordinance that allows for notification and identification of what is not being complied with. And then time to comply. If someone is not complying with something that we sited them, and they continue to not comply with the code. Then we send them notice that we are intending to revoke the permit. Then we would bring that before this Committee to discuss and then ultimately there would be a Board Action to revoke.
Jacqueline Traynere said, and they have to all be treated equally right. You can't go in and ask us to revoke it if have one violation?
Brian Radner said the zoning code would tell you that is possible, but the goal is to get compliance out of the people we are working with.
Jacqueline Traynere said the reason why this was brought to our attention is because they were in violation. In my personal opinion, I could approve this, but I want to make sure we are on top of this, so the first time they violate the conditions you are back here requesting it to revoked.
Steve Balich raised his hand.
Chairman Marcum said Steve go ahead.
Steve Balich said I heard rooster and I don't remember what codes were what. I thought we voted to allow chickens in all zoning classes but no roosters. My question is are roosters allowed in some zoning classes. I can't remember.
Lisa Napoles said roosters are only permitted in Agricultural Zoning Districts. The rooster has been removed from the property.
Steve Balich said I would agree with Jackie, as long as they keep the place clean, I don't have a problem with that.
Chairman Marcum said Rachel go ahead.
Rachel Ventura said my question is on procedure. If they wanted to approve this, could they amend it to say the approval for special permit for one year with automatic renewal if no violations are found. If not, they would have to come back after a year to petition. Does that make sense what I am saying? Like add a condition.
Lisa Napoles said so you want them to come back every year to renew their special permit?
Rachel Ventura said no, so right now we approve a special permit they get that permanently until otherwise noted.
Lisa Napoles said so you want them to come back?
Rachel Ventura said I want them to have one year like a testing period per say, and if there are not violations or complaints in that one year, then it automatically renews as normal, right. However, if there are violations in that first year then it ends at the end of that year, it doesn't automatically stay on. Then they would have to repetition for a new permit.
Lisa Napoles said now I understand what you are asking and now the State's Attorney does too.
Matt Guzman said on my position no you cannot have set for automatic renewal. You can make it for a certain length of time.
Rachel Ventura said Matt, just to clarify. You can set a time limit, but you cannot set an automatic renewal.
Matt Guzman said yes.
Rachel Ventura said how much does it cost to apply for this?
Lisa Napoles said it costs $1,250 to apply for this Special Use Permit. Special Use Permits are normally permanent to the property unless it's requested not be transferable. In that case upon sale of the property, the new owner would need to apply for a new permit.
Chairman Marcum said Amanda had a question.
Amanda Koch said I've actually answered my question, but it is my point that is kind of an undue hardship on the property owner. Either we are going to trust that they are going to do it, or the neighbor will initiate that complaint process if they are not happy. I would be in favor of utilizing original procedure we already had, instead of charging the owner extra money after a year.
Chairman Marcum said alright Steve.
Steve Balich said I understand what Rachel said but I don't think it's a good idea. I think if there is a problem, Land Use will be notified. If Land Use comes to us because they aren't complying with the conditions, then we can revoke it. We don't need to put more language into this. We can just vote.
Jacqueline Traynere said she was in agreement with Steve Balich.
Lisa Napoles said I wanted to correct myself, I did check the size of the property. For properties under 1 acre, the Special Use Permit fee is $675.
Chairman Marcum said anybody else?
No Answer
Chairman Marcum said since there is nothing else, we can roll call to approve.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed 4-1, with the 4 additional Conditions.
Motion to Approve Special Use Permit for Keeping of Farm Animals (Goats) in the R-3 District with 4 Conditions
| RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Traynere NAYS: Gazanfer ABSENT: Ogalla, Weigel |
(Lisa Napoles)
Chairman Marcum said before I let Lisa take over, I received a call from the Attorney requesting to postpone this case so he can work with residents in the upcoming month. But I am going to let Lisa give us the run down so we know what's coming and we can discuss the request later.
Lisa Napoles said thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to briefly summarize presented Zoning Case ZC-21-092, which takes place in Joliet Township is for a map amendment from R-3 to C-4. The owner is Maria Del Rosario Franco, and her Attorney is Nathaniel Washburn of K.G.G. LLC. The owner is seeking this map amendment to re-zone a vacant R-3 parcel to C-4 to consolidate the subject parcel with the parcel to the north in order to expand the existing tire shop use taking place on that north parcel.
The parcel to the north is the Mr. Tire, tire shop and the owners acquired the subject property in 2018 to expand the use. The parcel to the north not of adequate size to accommodate all the trucks that waiting for repair or waiting for pick-up. So, they are seeking this map amendment to expand the existing use. The property to the north is zoned C-4 as well. They will develop this vacant parcel into a parking lot to store the trucks waiting for repair or pick-up.
Chairman Marcum said questions.
No Answer
Chairman Marcum said as I said, Mr. Washburn did contact me, and he would like some time to work with the local residents to see if they can ease some of the concerns brought to the PZC.
Steve Balich made a Motion to postpone. Jacqueline Traynere seconded the Motion.
Chairman Marcum said Mr. Kavanagh is here. He signed up to speak in case we had any questions, I'm assuming. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this?
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Motion to Postpone Map Amendment from R-3 to C-4 (M-21-022)
| RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Traynere, Gazanfer ABSENT: Ogalla, Weigel |
(Marguerite Kenny)
Marguerite Kenny said thank you Mr. Chairman. Zoning Case ZC-21-095, like Chairman Marcum mentioned takes place in New Lenox. The subject property is roughly just shy of an acre in size. It is within the platted subdivision. It's Lot 29 in the Airport Industrial Park Unit 2 Subdivision. The applicant is seeking is a special use permit for an outdoor storage yard to use the property for a swimming pool installation and construction business storage yard. The outdoor storage will contain storage equipment, vehicles, and materials. For example, a 1-ton dump truck, some skid steers, some trailers, a backhoe, and other outdoor equipment materials associated with constructing swimming pools.
As the property is zoned I-1, it requires a special use permit in that District. The special use has been indicated to be transferable to the subsequent property owners as well as the applicable to the entire site. The applicant did state the hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday, 6am to 5pm. The site will not be open to the public. Will only be allowed for employees to come pick up the materials, equipment, vehicles that are needed for each job that are needed to go to the job sites located off site. It’s estimated that the average daily vehicle trips generated would be 4 per day. As the site will have trucks entering and leaving the site in the morning and afternoons, there will be a minimal increase in noise occurring from the property.
With regards to the actual improvement to the site, it will be pretty much a gravel parking lot driveway for the equipment to be stored. There will be two storage containers located onsite which is approved under the zoning ordinance as long as they acquire a building permit. The I-1 District does have a 30-foot setback requirement. The applicant has requested a variance which the Planning & Zoning Commission approved to be 6 feet along Howell Street. It will be encroaching into the street setback. This is to maximize the area in the storage yard. The applicant intends to use a chain-linked fence with slats for the side and the rear and that fence height can be up to 8-feet.
Of the agencies notified, none objected. The Village of New Lenox did hear the Zoning Request and did propose a couple of conditions which have been incoporated into Staff's recommedating conditions. The Planning and Zoning Commission amended condition number 2 to state that a 6-foot-tall PVC fence only be required along the street frontage which is more in conformance to what is existing in the industrial subdivision. Aside from that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with the 9 conditions as amended.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Marcum said Jackie.
Jacqueline Traynere said talk to me about this fence again. I'm not quite sure I understand. So, they want to put the fence 6-feet back from the road?
Marguerite Kenny said County Board Member Traynere fences within the zoning ordinance have to be a minimum of 4-feet in height to be located within the street setback. So, the I-1 district is 30-feet. From the property line or right-of-way line along Howell Street, 30-feet back into the property would be their street setback where they would only be permitted to have a 4-foot-tall fence. The variance allows them to put a fence within the 30-feet, to be 6-feet in height.
Jacqueline Traynere said okay so we are letting them put a fence up higher, which I do not have an issue with. Did you say the Ordinance requires a chain-linked fence but were letting them put up a PVC fence, or is it the other way around?
Marguerite Kenny said the other way around. So, our Ordinance does not require any type of design standard unless it's conditioned through the special use. It is the Village of New Lenox who prefers to see a solid PVC type fence along the road frontage. Which has been amended in the conditions to reflect that. As long as it provides screening, they can use the chain-linked fence with slats along the sides and rear.
Jacqueline Traynere said, and they are willing to do the PVC at 6-feet in height in the front. And how far back on the property line do they have to go?
Marguerite Kenny said so they can go right up to the property line with the fence to the 6-feet, if that is their intention if they want, they just have to submit site plans. The Zoning Ordinance does have a vision clearance provision which requires line of sight coming and going from the property where the fence if it is 6-feet can not be located in that sight triangle. So likely it will be where the gate is located for the fence. Or the fence has to be adjusted back so that it can meet the vision clearance provision.
Jacqueline Traynere said it's odd to me. There's not sidewalk there. The whole 30- foot this seems strange to me. If I was the property owner, I'd want my fence at my property line. I wouldn't want anyone tell me I had to go 30-feet back. I guess we have a lot of rules.
Steve Balich said I agree with Jackie.
Chairman Marcum said any other questions?
No Answer
Chairman Marcum said okay we had two people standing up to speak on this. Calls out Michael Busin. If I said your name wrong, I'm sorry. If you would please step down to the podium. Just hit the speak button on the microphone.
Michael Busin introduces himself along with his business partner Michael Fazio and Michael's son. Just in short, we acutally want to go 15-feet off. So, it will be curb, 15-feet, the landscaping and then the PVC fence in the front. We are looking to make it look identical to the property we just redeveloped down the street on Airport Road. Carefree Lawn Sprinklers is next door has a 6-foot-high chain-linked fence with slats that we are looking to match. All the other commerical properties in the neighborhood have that type of fence. Other than that, we have not comment. We'd appreicate your approval.
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion to approve. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Roll Call Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0 with the 9 Conditions.
Motion to Approve Special Use Permit for an Outdoor Storage Yard with 9 Conditions (S-21-024)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Traynere, Gazanfer ABSENT: Ogalla, Weigel |
Amending Housing Text Amendments of Definitions and Uses in Residential Areas within the Will County Zoning Ordinance
Chairman Marcum said, Staff is in the process off working to hire an additional Long Range Planner. Unless you want to touch anything else on it David.
David DuBois said, we are still working through the hiring process for additional help to assist with some of these projects, , it is not a replacement for Colin.
Chairman Marcum said hopefully once they get everyone hired and up to speed, we can get going on. We will not be discussing it since Colin is not here. That concludes that.
VI. REPORTS, COMMUNICATIONS, CORRESPONDENCE
1. Chair, Will County Land Use and Development Committee
Chairman Marcum said I will not be here next month, so Amanda will be Chairing.
2. Committee Members, Will County Land Use and Development Committee Chairman Marcum said Steve, I know you had something.
Steve Balich said I have a bunch of questions. The first question is, over the years I have been on this Committee for 8 or 9 years. We have never had the Solid Waste discussion here at all, ever. It all goes from Land Use. I would like to see stuff come to our Committee, so we know what's going on with the Landfill. I get calls from people all over the County with problems or questions. I'm sure other people get the same kinds of stuff. I was told that other Counties have a Landfill Committee. I don't think we need to do that, but we should get a Landfill Report. At least come on our iPads so we can see what's going on. Another question I have that I don't think it can be answered here is, but are we in a lawsuit with Environmental Recycling? If we are, why? From my understanding this information could be false because it is coming from the people on the phone calls I am receiving. Also, are we suing the EPA or the IEPA? How much money is this costing the County in lawyer fees to make these lawsuits? From the phone calls I received, they are saying we are suing Environmental Recycling and they got permission to expand by the EPA. So, we are suing the EPA. So why are we getting involved in something that seems to me isn't our business? I suggest that if we can't get the answers here, we need to do an Executive Session either on this Committee or on the Executive Committee to talk about this in public. I didn't want to talk to the attorney by myself just in case I misunderstood something. I want other people there to hear what is said.
Chairman Marcum said I am going to ask for some clarification. It was my understanding that the Executive Committee some years ago taken over as de facto Waste Committee. Not sure if that's true. I would have to ask, how does that work and where would the Executive Session take place?
Matt Guzman said if that is true, and I don't know. That is why I am looking to my cohorts over here but if it is, that is where I suggest it would take place. I will answer one questions, there is pending litigation. I will be right back.
Chairman Marcum said Steve I will find out the answer for you to make sure that you know. I don't want you to worry every month while we try to figure this out.
Steve Balich said I would like either you guys or someone from Landfill to come and tell us what is going on. I don't like to hear rumors or innuendos. I have to keep silent because I don't know if they are true or false.
Chairman Marcum said anyone else have anything to say or address?
Matt Guzman said so the Committee is aware, the matters related to the R & E Division recycling and waste related issues have been at the Executive Committee level. That is where the matters are discussed.
Chairman Marcum said that was my gut reaction. I will touch base with Speaker Cowan to make sure we are all on the same page.
Steve Balich said also who gets the report.
Chairman Marcum said any other Committee members have anything?
Rachel Ventura said I sent an email to David about a month ago about some of these things. Trying to see if we could create a streamlined process. To my understanding there was a complaint put in against one of the landfill locations. The other landfill locations right down the street have the same problems but since no complaint was put in (being we are a complaint-based County), they were not held to the same standards. I guess my question is how can we be consistent. So, if someone complains about trash blowing through a fence, would we just do a courteous inspection on the other two. Especially if you have to drive by one to get to the other. Do you know what I'm saying?
Chairman Marcum said I understand what you're saying. So, the question is, if one of our Land Use Staff drives by and sees something can they inspect without a complaint?
Matt Guzman said I can inquire with Dave Hartke about that, but I also anticipate it's the perimeters set by the delegation authority of the IEPA.
Chairman Marcum said so yes, someone would have to complain.
Rachel Ventura said can we make it a policy to hold them to the same standard? We don't want to retaliatory conflict situations.
Steve Balich said Rachel there is a law already. It's called Eco Protection Under Loss.
Chairman Marcum said Matt I don't know if you want to say anything.
Matt Guzman said in my opinion I see it as a slippery slope because you can pick in choose who to enforce. If you do that for the landfill, why don't you do the same thing for households?
Rachel Ventura said what would you suggest?
Matt Guzman said I don't have a suggestion.
Chairman Marcum says David.
David Dubois said I have a suggestion. We are missing one key person David Hartke in discussion. What I recommend is perhaps it would be helpful if you sent an email to us about your concerns. That way I can address specific questions and concerns. Like I said, we are missing key people who are involved in this directly.
Steve Balich said I sent a bunch of questions, but they wanted me to meet personally with the State's Attorney, but I refused.
David Dubois said I am referring to questions that are outside of the topics you brought up.
Chairman Marcum said I think he was speaking more to Rachel's concerns. Not your legal concerns.
Chairman Marcum said anybody else?
No one answers
Chairman Marcum said, no?
3. Director, Will County Land Use Department
Chairman Marcum said David do you have anything else to add?
David Dubois said no, I would like to welcome our new Member to the Board.
Chairman Marcum said I see we also have a new Staff Member since the last time we were here.
Jacqueline Traynere said I see.
Chairman Marcum said I don't know your name and don't mean to put you on the spot. If you would like to introduce yourself.
Adrian Diaz introduces himself as an employee with the Land Use Department.
4. Other
None
5. Public Comment
None
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn the Meeting
Jacqueline Traynere made a Motion to adjourn the meeting. Steve Balich seconded the Motion.
Voice Vote was taken. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Steve Balich, Member AYES: Marcum, Koch, Balich, Traynere, Gazanfer ABSENT: Ogalla, Weigel |
Alerts Sign-up